Ian Pilcher (arequipeno gmail com) said:
> On 12/01/2009 09:35 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > So, if our X maintainers won't handle bugs with it, we have a working
> > default alternative that is maintained upstream, and it's *known* to
> > be broken in the default configuration, why ship it? If we're trying to
> > focus on quality, I'm not sure why we'd ship something that's known
> > broken.
>
> Because the alternative may be more broken for some people?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495688
If the e1000 driver is broken in the kernel for some people, we don't support
shipping an alternate driver. If a new version of the intel graphics driver
is broken for some people, we don't support shipping a pre-KMS version
of the driver.
Why would we do differently here?
Bill